I can't see any reason to start looking for magic. — T Clark

When did it seem to you like I was. It is still the case that we cannot answer "Why is there such a manifestation at all" with a sample size of 1.

I certainly don't know for sure, although the only way everything could be conscious is if we drastically change the meaning of the word "conscious." — T Clark

How about changing it to "has mental experiences"

As I said, I don't think the hard problem of consciousness is hard. I don't even think it's a problem — T Clark

Alright then. Why are you conscious. Please give me the theory of consciousness that will explain whether anything is conscious or not definitively

I don't even think it's a problem. — T Clark

After four or more levels of neurons (Damasio?), consciousness forms.

A brain process perceives its qualia, a brain-invented language of self-referencing symbols, along with it going into memory as qualia, with other brain area alerted but the global qualia result, which can attend to it further. Simple. No big problem.

Alright then. Why are you conscious. Please give me the theory of consciousness that will explain whether anything is conscious or not definitively — khaled

Consciousness is a mental process, one among many. Mental processes are manifestations of biological processes. Those processes have been and are being studied by cognitive scientists. They have developed theories about how mental processes in general and consciousness specifically develop from biological processes.

I don't know what else to say. My forays into cognitive science are limited, so I can't give you much more detail.

Consciousness is a mental process, one among many. — T Clark

True

Mental processes are manifestations of biological processes — T Clark

You don't know that. We know that our biological processes result in mental processes. That doesn't mean mental processes are always manifestations of biological processes.

They have developed theories about how mental processes in general and consciousness specifically develop from biological processes. — T Clark

I would like to see those theories. Because most of the ones I've heard of make an unhealthy amount of assumptions. Like for example: that biological processes are necessary for mental ones.

Now matter which way you look at it, you can't extrapolate a definitive theory from a sample size of 1

After four or more levels of neurons (Damasio?), consciousness forms. — PoeticUniverse

How did they test this?
How did they measure consciousness and rule it out where there are three layers`? or anywhere.

You don't know that. — khaled

It is my understanding of how things are based on 1) a limited amount of specific reading on the subject and 2) my underlying belief in the way things work. What we see in the world is what we get. There aren't any places where secret knowledge is hidden.

I would like to see those theories. — khaled

I'm not the right one to have a detailed discussion of the state of cognitive science. If you want to know more, you'll have to do some research.

Like for example: that biological processes are necessary for mental ones. — khaled

I guess I would turn it around. What is the evidence that mental processes come from anywhere other than biological processes?

I guess I would turn it around. What is the evidence that mental processes come from anywhere other than biological processes? — T Clark

If he presents the hypothesis that they do then he needs to demonstrate that, but he was asking you for evidence of your hypothesis.

I would like to see those theories.
— khaled

I'm not the right one to have a detailed discussion of the state of cognitive science. If you want to know more, you'll have to do some research. — T Clark

If you know you're not the right person to show him your conclusions are correct, what's makes you think your conclusions are correct yourself.

Now don't get me wrong, basing conclusions on intuition is something we all do, but I think that needs to be up front.

It is my understanding of how things are based on 1) a limited amount of specific reading on the subject and 2) my underlying belief in the way things work. What we see in the world is what we get. There aren't any places where secret knowledge is hidden. — T Clark

I don't understand how this is a reply to what I'm saying. All I said was that we know that biological processes are sufficient for consciousness, from that we can't claim that they're necessary for it. In order to show they're necessary you'd need to first find every instance of mental processes in the universe (impossible because as I said you can't detect mental processes in anyone but yourself) and then show that all of them require biological reactions (which isn't guaranteed even assuming you managed to do the initial impossible task somehow)

I guess I would turn it around. What is the evidence that mental processes come from anywhere other than biological processes? — T Clark

None. What evidence do you have that anyone other than yourself has mental processes at all? None. That's the point. We can't "detect" mental processes in anyone but ourselves. So it makes no sense to claim from there that every form of mental process has the properties that our brains happen to have.

Also this

If he presents the hypothesis that they do then he needs to demonstrate that, but he was asking you for evidence of your hypothesis. — Coben

Thanks you saved me from typing that

If he presents the hypothesis that they do then he needs to demonstrate that, but he was asking you for evidence of your hypothesis. — Coben

Unless I have misunderstood him, he does believe that mental processes come from other than merely biological processes. If that's true, he should provide the evidence. If I'm wrong about what he believes, let him tell us so.

If you know you're not the right person to show him your conclusions are correct, what's makes you think your conclusions are correct yourself.

Now don't get me wrong, basing conclusions on intuition is something we all do, but I think that needs to be up front. — Coben

Here's what I wrote:

It is my understanding of how things are based on 1) a limited amount of specific reading on the subject and 2) my underlying belief in the way things work. What we see in the world is what we get. There aren't any places where secret knowledge is hidden. — T Clark

That's more than intuition and less than specific evidence. It's the best I can do right now and I'm comfortable standing behind it.

Unless I have misunderstood him, he does believe that mental processes come from other than merely biological processes. — T Clark

I don't. I contend with saying I have no idea what they come from.

Unless I have misunderstood him, he does believe that mental processes come from other than merely biological processes. If that's true, he should provide the evidence. If I'm wrong about what he believes, let him tell us so. — T Clark

But that's a separate issue. It's as if you don't need to justify since he hasn't. If he has asserted it comes from other processes or sources, sure, he needs to justify that. But that doesn't take away your onus. Now you both need to justify.

You don't know that.
— khaled

It is my understanding of how things are based on 1) a limited amount of specific reading on the subject and 2) my underlying belief in the way things work. What we see in the world is what we get. There aren't any places where secret knowledge is hidden. — T Clark

That's more than intuition and less than specific evidence. It's the best I can do right now and I'm comfortable standing behind it. — T Clark

The conclusions are intuitive, even if they are in reaction to some evidence you have read, and interpreted the way you have.

But my point was you had judged yourself the wrong person to show why these are good conclusions. Your own estimation and in response to him saying you don't know that. I think that's a fair statement on his part giving what you said in response and what you say here. You don't know that. You do not consider yourself someone who can make the position clear and demonstrable. Your estimation. You think it, sure. It's your opinion.

and see above... he does not have the position you are arguing. He has not gained some onus to demonstate his position.

↪T Clark
Unless I have misunderstood him, he does believe that mental processes come from other than merely biological processes.
— T Clark

I don't. I contend with saying I have no idea what they come from. — khaled

Which, then, does not entail you have some position to demonstate. You are skeptical about his position.

Which, then, does not entail you have some position to demonstate. You are skeptical about his position. — Coben

Yes.

All I said was that we know that biological processes are sufficient for consciousness, — khaled

I wasn't aware that you had said that. I must have misunderstood.

from that we can't claim that they're necessary for it. In order to show they're necessary you'd need to first find every instance of mental processes in the universe (impossible because as I said you can't detect mental processes in anyone but yourself) and then show that all of them require biological reactions (which isn't guaranteed even assuming you managed to do the initial impossible task somehow) — khaled

Sure, although trivial. We're only talking about one particular type of mental process - those that are manifested in people. Us. Here. Now. There's lots of talk of non-biological mental processes, e.g. artificial intelligence. I didn't think that's what we were discussing.

What evidence do you have that anyone other than yourself has mental processes at all? None. That's the point. We can't "detect" mental processes in anyone but ourselves. — khaled

That is completely untrue. I have all sorts of evidence of mental processes in other people. I talk to them and they describe their experiences. I see them solve problems. I watch their behavior and recognize patterns that are consistent with my own behavior when I have specific experiences, e.g. I see mother's hold and touch their babies and I understand that as evidence that they love their children as I love mine. They say "look at the red light," and, when I look up, the light is red.

The conclusions are intuitive, even if they are in reaction to some evidence you have read, and interpreted the way you have. — Coben

Calling my conclusions "intuitive" doesn't mean anything. If you want to say that you don't agree with them without additional evidence, fine. That's a reasonable response. I don't have more to offer, so we'll have to leave it at that.

Which, then, does not entail you have some position to demonstate. You are skeptical about his position. — Coben

If all this is is my misunderstanding of what @khaled has said, then I guess we're done.

I wasn't aware that you had said that. I must have misunderstood — T Clark

Is it not true though?
P1: When these neurons turn off I stop being conscious
C1: these neurons are sufficient for me being conscious (logical)
C2: these neurons are necessary for me being conscious (not logical)

You're claiming C2 and I'm claiming it doesn't follow from the evidence

There's lots of talk of non-biological mental processes, e.g. artificial intelligence. I didn't think that's what we were discussing — T Clark

It was. The original "hard problem" I posed was "How does consciousness arise?". You answered with "through biological processes" and now I'm showing that that's a sufficient not necessary condition and therefore doesn't satisfy as an answer to the hard problem.

That is completely untrue. I have all sorts of evidence of mental processes in other people. I talk to them and they describe their experiences. I see them solve problems. I watch their behavior and recognize patterns that are consistent with my own behavior when I have specific experiences, e.g. I see mother's hold and touch their babies and I understand that as evidence that they love their children as I love mine. They say "look at the red light," and, when I look up, the light is red. — T Clark

NONE Of this couldn't have been done by a very advanced chat bot. Mental processes are not actually necessary for anything you're describing here.

Is it not true though?
P1: When these neurons turn off I stop being conscious
C1: these neurons are sufficient for me being conscious (logical)
C2: these neurons are necessary for me being conscious (not logical)

You're claiming C2 and I'm claiming it doesn't follow from the evidence — khaled

I believe that biological processes are sufficient to explain human mental processes. Nothing else is required.

It was. The original "hard problem" I posed was "How does consciousness arise?". You answered with "through biological processes" and now I'm showing that that's a sufficient not necessary condition and therefore doesn't satisfy as an answer to the hard problem. — khaled

I think you have your logic backwards. I'm just talking about people now. I'm not talking about other ways that consciousness might arise, only how it has in people. There is no hard problem.

NONE Of this couldn't have been done by a very advanced chat bot. Mental processes are not actually necessary for anything you're describing here. — khaled

So, the world is full of very advanced chatbots. Is that correct? I started a new Tai Chi class today with about 15 people I'd never met before. They were all robots. Is that correct. My mother was a robot? My wife is a robot. Everybody but me is a robot. Do you expect me to take this seriously?

believe that biological processes are sufficient to explain human mental processes. Nothing else is required. — T Clark

But that doesn't answer the original question though does it? "Biological processes are sufficient to explain human mental processes" doesn't answer "Why do mental processes arise" does it? That would require finding necessary not sufficient conditions

I think you have your logic backwards. I'm just talking about people now. I'm not talking about other ways that consciousness might arise — T Clark

I am. The question was "Why does consciousness arise?" Not "what is necessary for consciousness in humans". The former is the actual hard problem.

So, the world is full of very advanced chatbots. Is that correct? I started a new Tai Chi class today with about 15 people I'd never met before. They were all robots. Is that correct. My mother was a robot? My wife is a robot. Everybody but me is a robot. Do you expect me to take this seriously? — T Clark

Of course not. I'm just showing that what you presented isn't scientific evidence, it's opinion. Granted, an opinion we all share (except solipsists), but still an opinion.

Of course not. I'm just showing that what you presented isn't scientific evidence, it's opinion. Granted, an opinion we all share (except solipsists), but still an opinion. — khaled

We're not getting anywhere. I'm think we've taken it as far as we can.

really? I thought we were. Forget the solipsism and just answer this then. Please?

I think you have your logic backwards. I'm just talking about people now. I'm not talking about other ways that consciousness might arise
— T Clark

I am. The question was "Why does consciousness arise?" Not "what is necessary for consciousness in humans". The former is the actual hard problem. — khaled

Why does consciousness arise? — khaled

There are no answers to why questions, at least not in science. Sometimes we can figure out how. As for how do mental processes arise, I believe it is through the action of biological processes in the brain and elsewhere in the body.

Time for me to go to bed.

There are no answers to why questions, at least not in science — T Clark

And that's why the problem is hard. Lol.

As for how do mental processes arise, I believe it is through the action of biological processes in the brain and elsewhere in the body. — T Clark

Yup. We can agree those processes are sufficient for mental processes to arise.

If he has asserted it comes from other processes or sources, sure, he needs to justify that. But that doesn't take away your onus. Now you both need to justify. — Coben

You are here applying a binomial distinction to a continuous variable. Justification is not a property of propositions, it is a state of mind of those hearing them. The fact that T Clark finds the existence of scientific conclusions about consciousness to be sufficient to justify his position and Khaled doesn't, does not make T Clark's position unjustified, simply not justified to Khaled's satisfaction.

Consider a person who believed the entire scientific community were lizardmen from Mars and lied continuously. We could present such a person with absolutely unequivocal scientific evidence of some proposition and yet they would remain unconvinced. Does that make our position unjustified?

Given the very complex nature of most modern scientific investigations, and the fact that we cannot all become experts in every field, it is a perfectly rational justification to say that scientists have concluded such and such and rest your case there.

The alternative is the type of argument we've already heard here which amounts to "I don't understand what the neuroscientists are telling me about consciousness, therefore I'm going to conclude that they don't have a clue what it is from a neurological point of view"

If we are to discuss matters whose conditions rely on scientific facts, we either simply trust that what a critical mass of scientists say is at least plausible, no matter how confusing their conclusions may seem to us, or we become experts in that field ourselves. I don't see any alternative.

Is it not true though?
P1: When these neurons turn off I stop being conscious
C1: these neurons are sufficient for me being conscious (logical)
C2: these neurons are necessary for me being conscious (not logical)

You're claiming C2 and I'm claiming it doesn't follow from the evidence — khaled

You are mixing logical with inductive reasoning here. Sufficiency and necessary causes are statements of logical propositions. Logical propositions do not submit to evidence, they are propositions of tautology. So, a conditional is a necessary cause if, when it is true, the conclusion must be true. The theory that consciousness is a necessary consequence of (certain) neurons in a certain state is a belief, not a tautology of logic. It is a belief based on evidence. there's no logical work that can be done to undo it.

all I was trying to say is that the evidence we have merits one belief much more than the other, that being that biological processes are sufficient for consciousness not that they are necessary. Neither of those is tautological but one makes much more sense in light of the evidence. Just like seeing a ball fall towards earth merits "being at a high altitude is sufficient for this ball to move" much more than "being at a high altitude is necessary for this ball to move" assuming that's the only piece of data you have

But that's simply not the case. The evidence does not make "much more sense in light of the evidence". It may do to you, but the making of sense and the garnering of evidence is not a logical matter and so is not subject to logical propositions.

To take your ball example. If the only situations in which we had ever seen a ball move were those where it is dropped from a high altitude, then it may be entirely adequate for some people to believe that being dropped from a high altitude is necessary for a ball to move. Others may imagine other possible ways a ball might move and determine that being dropped from a high altitude is not necessary, merely sufficient. Whether each person is satisfied with their conclusion is entirely subjective, it has no bearing on the logical ascription of 'necessary' or 'sufficient' to the antecedent.

To take your ball example. If the only situations in which we had ever seen a ball move were those where it is dropped from a high altitude — Isaac

That's not the case. I said you only ever saw one ball fall and it did so from a high altitude. Let's also add that you saw the ball on the ground not moving once as well. It makes much more sense to say it is a sufficient condition then does it not? It requires much more evidence to claim something is a necessary condition. You'd need to have good reason to believe you've uncovered much of the cases in which the ball moves.

The evidence does not make "much more sense in light of the evidence". It may do to you, but the making of sense and the garnering of evidence is not a logical matter — Isaac

I know. My bad for writing it like a syllogism. But it is a statistical matter.

You are here applying a binomial distinction to a continuous variable. Justification is not a property of propositions, it is a state of mind of those hearing them. The fact that T Clark finds the existence of scientific conclusions about consciousness to be sufficient to justify his position and Khaled doesn't, does not make T Clark's position unjustified, simply not justified to Khaled's satisfaction. — Isaac

No, it wasn't justified in T Clark's own estimation. He told Khaled that if he wanted answers he would need to talk to someone else. Which means that he cannot justify his own conclusions to himself. Further he responded to Khaled's saying 'you can't know that' when he said that. It would have been easy for him to say, that's right, I don't. It's my guess. But he tried to make it sound like the science was out there and some other person could justify it for Khaled. But this included a self-estimation that he himself could not justify it.

Consider a person who believed the entire scientific community were lizardmen from Mars and lied continuously. We could present such a person with absolutely unequivocal scientific evidence of some proposition and yet they would remain unconvinced. Does that make our position unjustified? — Isaac

This is utterly strawman.

Given the very complex nature of most modern scientific investigations, and the fact that we cannot all become experts in every field, it is a perfectly rational justification to say that scientists have concluded such and such and rest your case there. — Isaac

That't not a case. And until I find scientists presenting what consciousness is and the mechanism for its appearance, I don't see why I should take another lay person's conclusion that we know the source of consciousness and that it is limited to X or caused by X and that science shows this. Especially when this lay person is saying they haven't read much and that they think someone else would be the right person to help someone draw a conclusion. Well, how did he draw a conclusion he feels strongly about enough to not agree he does not know? Why does he trust his own conclusion, if he does not think someone else should trust it?

If we are to discuss matters whose conditions rely on scientific facts, we either simply trust that what a critical mass of scientists say is at least plausible, no matter how confusing their conclusions may seem to us, or we become experts in that field ourselves. I don't see any alternative. — Isaac

It's a philosophy forum. We are discussing ideas and from perspectives that sometimes scientists are not the only ones equiped to look at, and often also do not have the philosophical tools to see their own assumptions. Up into the 70s in consensus science it was taboo to talk about animals as having consciousness, intentions, emotions, and so on. While lay people like pet owners and animal trainers knew animals had these things. There were paradigmatic limitations within science then. It was actually professionally dangerous to start talking about animals as experiencers. Nevertheless rational non-scientists could mount arguments- which are now part of scientific consensus-about animals that were at that time and before taboo in science.

I don't see how a philosophy forum benefits from people saying 'consensus science believes X' conversation over. And this would be a lay person analyzing science, and in the specfiic case of T. Clark above, saying that he can't remember that much and hasn't read that much.

Really? we should stop the discussion there?

And again, he said this without admitting that he didn't know. What a simple thing to say? You can't no this? No, you're right Khaled, it is my impression from what I read, though it was not a broad reading of the relevent research.

And now you are entering this particular exchange and making it seem like that's a stopping point.

He told Khaled that if he wanted answers he would need to talk to someone else. Which means that he cannot justify his own conclusions to himself. — Coben

Again, justify is a subjective state. The fact that one person (requiring more information) is redirected by another only demonstrates that that second person does not have information sufficient for the first. It does not tell us anything about whether they have information sufficient for them.

he tried to make it sound like the science was out there and some other person could justify it for Khaled. But this included a self-estimation that he himself could not justify it. — Coben

Yes, because the science is indeed out there, and the estimation included was that he could not justify it to Khaled's satisfaction. As I said before, justify is not a binomial state. It is measured in degrees.

until I find scientists presenting what consciousness is and the mechanism for its appearance, I don't see why I should take another lay person's conclusion that we know the source ofconsciousness and that it is limited to X or caused by X and that science shows this. — Coben

Your not "taking" their conclusion, and your claiming their conclusion is not justified are two different things. You may not belive T Clark when he says he has read such conclusions. That is a matter of trust, not logic. In a situation like this, I can't think of any reason why he might lie. And to be clear, he was being asked to actually explain the science, not merely name some scientists. What if explaining the science is beyond his ability (apologies if it isn't, consider this hypothetical)? Does that make it impossible for him to hold any justified beliefs? I sincerely hope not or else we're all screwed in that respect.


If we want to know why consciousness arose, and by 'why' mean to find a necessary and sufficient set of causes, then we must look to physical chains of events and eliminate each until the phenomena is no longer present. That is an empirical investigation, not a philosophical one.

If, rather, we want to know which concepts about why consciousness arise are internally non-contradicory and consistent with what empirical evidence we have, then such is an ideal task for amateur philosophy to be engaged in. But by that standard, T Clark's position is as good as any other. It is not internally contradictory, and it is not overwhelmingly contradicted by empirical evidence.

Consciousness is a mental process, one among many. — T Clark

In humans, it’s a meaning process. That’s what makes human consciousness different.